Full Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 688 OF 2021
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER(S)
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3305 OF 1997
CHAMUNDI HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED …PETITIONER (S)
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3307 OF 1997
RAJE URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER(S)
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3310 OF 1997
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR. …PETITIONER (S)
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3309 OF 1997
INDRAKSHI DEVI …PETITIONER (S)
IN
CIVILAPPEAL NO. 3306 OF 1997
KAMAKSHI DEVI AVARU …PETITIONER(S)
JUDGMENT
1. Alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court, these contempt petitions have been filed for punishing the respondents for their alleged contumacious act. 1.[1] For purposes of convenience the contempt petitions which have been filed with details appended thereto are tabulated herein below:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Serial PETITION No. HAVE BEEN FILED │ │ No. │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 CP. No. 688 of Chaduranga Shri P. Ravi Order dt. 21.11.2014 │ │ 2021 in C.A. NO. Kanthraj Urs Kumar and passed in I.A. No. 13 of │ │ 3309 -3310 /1997 and Anr. Ors. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 │ │ of 1997. │ │ 2 CP. No. 578/2022 Chamundi Smt. Vandita i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 │ │ in C.A. No. 3305 Hotel Private Sharma and passed in I.A. No. 13 of │ │ of 1997 Limited Ors. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 │ │ of 1997. │ │ ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 │ │ in I.A. No. 98276 of │ │ 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 │ │ of 1997. │ │ iii. Order dt. │ │ 19.03.2024 in CP No. │ │ 578 of 2022. │ │ 3 CP. No. 716 of M.L Smt Vandita i. Order dt. 21.11.2014 │ │ 2023 in C.A. No. Varchusvin Sharma and passed in I.A. No. 13 of │ │ 3307 of 1997 S.S. Raje Urs. Ors. 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of │ │ 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of │ │ 1997. │ │ ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in │ │ I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in │ │ C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. │ │ 4 CP. No. 555 of Chaduranga Dr. Rajneesh i.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in │ │ 2024 in C.A. No. Kanthraj Urs Goel and Ors. I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in │ │ 3310 of 1997 and and Anr. C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. │ │ C.P. 688 of 2021 │ │ ii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in │ │ CP No. 578 of 2022. │ │ 5 CP. No. 556 of Smt. Indrakshi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 │ │ 2024 in C.A. No. Devi and Ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of │ │ 3309 of 1997 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of │ │ 1997. │ │ ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in │ │ I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in │ │ C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. │ │ 6 C.P No. 585 of Kamakshi Rajneesh Goel i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 │ │ 2024 in C.A. No. Devi Avaru and ors. passed in I.A. No. 13 of │ │ 3306 of 1997 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of │ │ 1997. │ │ ii.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in │ │ I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in │ │ C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
20. A perusal of the same would indicate that this Court in no uncertain terms and categorically has held that State should issue necessary TDR as directed by this Court on 21.11,2014 and 17.05.22. In fact, specific direction was issued that there should be compliance within eight (8) weeks. It was also ordered that the recipient of the TDR should undertake to return the consideration received upon sale or transfer of the TDR in the event of the civil appeals before this Court are dismissed and called upon the complainants to file an affidavit of undertaking to this effect in the nature of personal bond(s) to be furnished by the recipient of the TDR to the state before the sale or transfer of the TDR. We deem it appropriate to note at this juncture that order dated 19.03.2024 was passed for implementing the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 and there was no occasion or necessity for this Court to impose further conditions which in effect would amount to tweaking the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. Infact there was no such prayer made by the State or its instrumentalities by filing appropriate applications. Attempt made in that regard by filing I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 had already been rejected by this Court by Order dated 17.05.2022 itself. Yet another reason which requires to be assigned for supporting such a view, emanates from the fact that State itself has admitted in the I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 that if TDR is to be issued as per TDR Rules the market value will have to be determined as per TDR Rules, which in effect would mean value of the land has to be determined as per the value fixed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Accordingly, the calculation had been made and pleaded financial hardship. Though, while applying the market value as fixed under the Stamp Act, 1957, 60% of the value has been deducted which we are not in agreement for reasons detailed herein below, yet, the fact remains that State itself has admitted and adopted the value fixed under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to fix the value of TDR to be issued. We would hasten to add that Civil Appeals relating to challenge of acquisition of larger area (456 acres) is still pending before the court and sufficient safeguards to protect the interest of the State can be taken care of at the time of passing final order. Necessarily, the issuance of TDR as per TDR Rules would be subject to final outcome of Civil Appeals and as such filing of an undertaking by the recipients of TDR as opined by our Order dated 19.03.2024 is not warranted. Hence, we deem it proper to delete the additional condition imposed by this Court by order dated 19.03.2024 and making it explicitly clear that TDR issued by the competent authority would be subject to final orders that may be passed in CivilAppeals pending before larger bench and this order would have no bearing on the pending appeals. 20.[1] Though, initially there was resistance to the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, the State and its machinery seems to have understood the gravity of the situation and to fall in line with the further directions issued by this Court, has made a feeble attempt on 19.03.2024 to demonstrate before this Court of having complied with the orders passed by this Court which is alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed by the contemnors. After having dragged their feet for the last 10 years and having exhausted all remedies to stave off the orders dated 21.11.2024, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024, the respondent authorities or contemnors have filed affidavits by stating thereunder that orders of this Court have been complied. The affidavits dated 09.07.2024 filed by Shri Uma Shankar Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka- Respondent No.1 would indicate that the deponent is depicting the picture of having complied with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 without any whisper with regard to the order dated 19.03.2024. In fact the deponent has relied upon the Government Order No. DPAR 68 PSR 2024 dated 24.05.2024 whereunder the TDR for 15 acres 17.[5] guntas has been resolved to be issued to the complainants by determining the value as per the BPAT Act. The deponent also refers to the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (TDR) who has again rested his oars on the Government Order dated 24.05.2024 namely determining the value of the land as per the value determined under the BPAT Act for the entire land of 436 acres. Pursuant to the said orders the TDR is said to have been forwarded to the complainant/claimant. On this ground contemnors are seeking from being absolved of the present proceedings or in other words seeking for contempt proceedings being dropped and clearly admitting there has been delay for which an unconditional apology has been tendered. 20.[2] The affidavit of compliance filed by respondent No.3 is as vague, vagueness could be. Except enclosing the order No. UDD 22 MNY 2023, Bengaluru dated 15.03.2024 whereby it has been resolved to utilise 15 acres 39 guntas of the Bengaluru Palace for road widening subject to the grant of TDR and undertaking that BPAT would implement the orders nothing further revolves around this affidavit. 20.[3] The compliance affidavit of Respondent No.4 namely the Commissioner of BDA would indicate the steps taken by the said authorities to implement the order namely issuance of notice dated 10.06.2024 and reply given thereto by the noticee and the purported joint mahazar having been drawn at the spot for taking possession of the subject land, nothing more turns around. 20.[4] The compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.[5] to 6 is in same line with the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4. 20.[5] We find from the afore-stated affidavits that the consistent stand taken by the State from day one till date is to the effect that: (i) petitioners were not entitled for the TDR; (ii) if at all they are entitled to, then they would be entitled to the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act or the value of the land as fixed by the ULC authorities or the value of the land as determined by the authorities determining the wealth tax; (iii) even if value is to be determined and TDR is to be furnished the valuation of the land cannot be as per the value fixed for the adjacent lands under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 and the value is to be fixed as per the value of the land determined under the BPAT Act namely 11 crores for 472 acres and proportionately for 15 acres 39 guntas the value of the subject land has to be determined.
21. Having dragged its feet for years in implementing the Orders of this Court the respondents seem to have conceptualized a novel method to overreach the Orders of this Court and we say so for the simple reason that affidavit of the compliance does not indicate or clearly admit that the TDR certificate being issued is in accordance with the extant TDR Rules but it is on an assumed value. The notice dated 10.06.2024 which was preceded by Government Order dated 24.05.2024 issued to the petitioners reflect that market value of the land acquired has been determined @ Rs.120.68/ per square meter inclusive of interest, which notice has also been duly replied to by the petitioners on 13.06.2024 contending valuation made is contrary to TDR Rules. The Government Order dated 24.05.2024 being contrary to the direction issued by this Court cannot be accepted or the value of the subject land as determined thereunder to be correct, or the value indicated therein can be taken as a determination as per TDR Rules and it is diametrically opposite to the TDR Rules. We say so for reasons more than one. Firstly, the gazette notification dated 27.09.2023 issued in exercise of power vested under Section 45B of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 by the Government of Karnataka fixing the guidance value of the properties for the purposes of registration which has been appended to the counter affidavit filed by the complainants would indicate that the value of the subject property is fixed at Rs. 2,83,500 per square meter on Bellary Road, and for Jayamahal Road it is fixed at Rs. 2,04,000 per square meter (see convenience compilation filed on 21.07.2024 at pages 248 and 249) and this value is not adopted. Secondly, the applicable rules for issuance of TDR is known and called as Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules 2016. Section 2(i) defines ‘Market Value’ to mean the value determined as per the guidance value of land in accordance with Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957. Thus, the TDR has to be issued as per the guidance value fixed under the Stamp Act and it is for this precise reason the State while determining the market value of the subject land had adopted the guidance value as specified under the Stamp Act for purposes of calculation/determination under I.A. NO. 98276 of 2021 for pleading financial hardship. The State Government cannot now retrace its steps in this regard and determine the value of the subject property at its whims or fancies or on any imaginary value for the purposes of issuance of TDR. Thirdly, the market value of the property has to be prescribed under Rule 4 of TDR Rules, which clearly mandates the “market value” of a property to be as prescribed under Section 45B of Stamp Act, as the basis for issuance of TDR. In fact, this Court by Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 in no uncertain terms has ordered or directed the respondents to issue TDR as per TDR Rules. Fourthly, in the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 98276 of 2021) filed for modification by the State, it has been specifically pleaded by the State itself that “if the compensation was required to be paid in terms of the award passed under the Act of 1996, then for the extent of 15 acres and 39 guntas the compensation payable would be Rs. 37,28,813. However, if the TDR certificate is to be issued as per TDR rules for the said extent of 15 acres 39 guntas, it would result in 13,91,742 sq. feet additional built up area constructable in the city of Bengaluru and approximately it would be equivalent to notional value of Rs.1,396 crores” after deducting 60% of the guidance value. The State specifically pleaded that TDR once granted is transferable and it would not be possible to recover the value of the TDR from the appellants if it is transferred to other parties/ builders, in the event of final judgment going against the appellants. In fact, it is for this precise reason we have opined supra that orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 was not required to be tweaked by this Court by adding additional conditions. Fifthly, it is to be noted that when value of adjacent and abutting land is fixed at Rs. 2,83,500 per sq. meter and 2,04,000 per sq. meter respectively under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the value of subject land cannot be diminished below the said value. The State specifically sought for modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 whereunder it was required to issue TDR as per TDR rules and wanted to pay compensation as per the calculation in the original award of 1996 in similar terms of the order dated 15.02.1999 passed on IA No.2 and this has been categorically turned down or rejected by this Court by order dated 17.05.2022. For these myriad reasons Government Order dated 24.05.2024 cannot be accepted as substantial compliance of the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 and it stands rejected.
22. In fact, the State itself has categorically admitted in its Government Order dated 23.02.2021 the value of the TDR to be issued in favour of the claimants would be as under: Total area 15 Acres 36 Guntas, Total 639 Guntas 639 x 1089 = 695871 sq. ft. x 2 = 1391742 sq. feet. It is also admitted that the gross value is Rs.2,70,000 per Sq. Meter. However, it has determined the value as 0.[4] times of the land value that is 1,08,000 per Sq. Meter on the premise that it is to be construed as an agricultural land. This very plea came to be raised for the modification of the order dated 21.11.2014 and it was turned down by this Court by order dated 17.05.2022 and it was reiterated that the TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules namely by adopting market value of the land. The value of the land cannot be anything less than market value as already determined under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957. At the cost of repetition it requires to be noticed that the State Government itself has considered the market value as per guidance value at Rs. 2,70,000 per sq. meter fixed under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and has adopted 0.[4] times of the said value to calculate the TDR for the reason that the Bangalore Palace falls within agricultural zone which cannot be market value under TDR Rules. No material whatsoever has been placed by the State to depict that the subject land is to be construed as falling within agricultural zone. In fact, the subject property was utilized as a private residence of the then Maharaja of Mysore since long number of years and it is situated in the heart of city of Bangalore. There cannot be any cavial to the fact that TDR is required to be issued as per TDR Rules. In fact, not dwelling upon further on this aspect, it can be safely concluded that valuation of the subject land even according to the State was determined as per the guidance value then prevailing but restricted it to 40% of the guidance value by treating it as agriculture land without any basis whatsoever. The notifications issued under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act prescribes the guidance value and this value alone ought to have been adopted and there cannot be any reduction or subtraction in that regard. Thus, any amount of plea raised by the contemnors on the ground of financial hardship or otherwise would be in contravention of the Order passed by this Court on 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. Hence, we are of the considered view that the State and its instrumentalities and/or the competent authority being the BBMP is required to issue the TDR as per the then prevailing guidance value fixed under Section 45B of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 namely 2,83,500 per sq. meter for Bellary Road and 2,04,000 per sq. meter for Jayamahal road as indicated under the notifications issued under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act.
23. Yet the fact remains that subsequent to the same the State has calculated the value of the TDR in terms of the Order dated 22.04.2024 and 06.06.2024 as approved by the provisional acceptance order dated 07.06.2024, the correctness of which cannot be subject matter of the present contempt proceedings and the value of subject land as determined thereunder has not been accepted by this Court for the reasons already indicated supra. No doubt by way of attempting to purge in the contempt, these orders have been passed. The State and its authorities have no doubt dragged their feet in implementing the orders of the Court. However, there seems to be thin line of doubt which has arisen in the mind of State and its authorities as regards the valuation and in this direction if steps have been taken to protect the interest of the revenue and several meetings have been held and these aspects are placed before the State Cabinet and a decision has been taken by the State cabinet, it cannot be construed or held that State is not willing to implement the order and particularly in the background of several orders having been passed though not in consonance with the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022. Hence, we deem it proper to extend one final opportunity to report compliance within a time frame.
24. Since we have opined that the State and its authorities have intentionally dragged its feet for long number of years and having attempted to tap all the mirage remedies and left with no other option and to stave off these proceedings have passed the orders dated 15.03.2024, 22.04.2024, 24.05.2024 and 10.06.2024 to utilise the subject land for road widening, fixing the extent to which each of the claimants would be entitled for compensation and to issue the TDR on an estimate value which is not accepted by this Court, still an opportunity to issue TDR’s as per market value as envisaged under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as observed hereinabove ought to be extended to the respondents/contemnors.
25. Hence, we direct the respondent authorities to issue the TDR as per the value noticed hereinabove in favour of the respective claimants within six (6) weeks from today. We also make it abundantly clear that issuance of the TDR certificates would be subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court while disposing of the appeals which are pending before the larger Bench and both parties are at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the court adjudicating the appeals. This order would also have no bearing on the respective contentions of both the parties in pending appeals or on any other collateral proceedings. We also make it explicitly clear that the order dated 19.03.2024 to the extent of imposing additional conditions is hereby recalled, as it is diametrically opposite to the order dated 17.05.2022 and 21.11.2014. The directions issued under Orders dated: 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 shall be complied by the competent authority of BBMP keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove within six (6) weeks from today and compliance affidavit shall be filed within the said period failing which the Commissioner, BBMP and the competent authority for issuance of TDR shall appear in person before this Court for having failed to comply with the orders of this Court, to enable this Court to pass further orders. On account of the faux pas situation that has been created by the respondent authorities, we direct that each of the complainants shall be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each towards the cost of these proceedings except complainant in C.P. No. 578 of
2022.
26. In the light of the aforesaid observations contempt petition Nos.688 of 2021, 716 of 2023, 555 of 2024, 556 of 2024 and 585 of 2024 are allowed in above terms, CP No. 578 of 2022 stands disposed of reserving liberty to the complainants to pursue their grievance before the competent authority for issuance of TDR on resolution of the inter se dispute and it is needless to state that successful party would be entitled to receive the TDR as ordered by this Court vide Order dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024.
27. All pending applications stands consigned to records. For reporting compliance and/or appearance of the contemnors as the case may be. List these matters on 22nd January 2025. …..……………………J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) …..……………………J. (ARAVIND KUMAR) New Delhi, December 10, 2024